[Omkar]

US airline regulators have launched an investigation after an engine cowling on a Boeing plane fell off during takeoff and struck the wing flap, the latest in a series of safety problems facing the aircraft manufacturer.

Southwest Airlines flight 3695 rose to about 3,140 metres (10,300ft) before returning safely 25 minutes after takeoff to Denver international airport at about 8.15am local time on Sunday. It was towed to the gate after landing. The Boeing aircraft with 135 passengers and six crew members onboard had been headed to Houston, Texas. No one was injured.

The Southwest plane entered service in June 2015, according to FAA records. The airline declined to say when the plane’s engine had last undergone maintenance. The airline said maintenance teams were reviewing the aircraft. It was a 737-800, a model that the troubled 737 Max series was intended to replace.

Boeing’s safety record has come under renewed scrutiny this year after a door plug panel came off a new Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 jet at about 5,000 metres (16,000ft) on 5 January. In the aftermath of that incident, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the Max 9 for several weeks, barred Boeing from increasing its rate of production of the aircraft and ordered it to develop a comprehensive plan to address “systemic quality control issues” within 90 days.

Boeing has been trying to increase the rate of 737 Max production for several years since its bestselling plane was allowed to fly again after an extended ban. Regulators around the world banned the 737 Max from flying after 346 people died in two crashes in 2018 and 2019 because of a design flaw.

Despite the controversy over the safety problems, Boeing last week revealed it had increased Calhoun’s pay by 45% to the highest since he took over. Boeing awarded Calhoun $32.8m (£26m) in pay, after adding $30m in stock options on top of his $1.4m salary. However, he may not collect all of the options if he steps down at the end of the year as planned.

Source - The Guardian

https://youtube.com/watch?v=SXmoqDaApi4?feature=share

Source - Twitter

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^

Thank you @Omkar for sharing this.

This incident has nothing to do with Boeing or the 737 or its design. This has everything to do with weak maintenance by the airline and a weak pre-flight walk around check by the pilot. In automobile language this is like a driver forgets to shut his car's door, goes off at 60 kmph and the door hits something and suffers damage. Understandably these days any incident with any Boeing machine is getting an overdose of publicity. Like I've written in other threads the Boeing 737 NG of which the 737-800 is a sub variant is an excellently designed family of aircraft which are not responsible for the travails of the 737MAX.

This was one lucky aircraft and set of passengers. If that set of cowlings {left and right} had damaged a flight control surface {flaps, alerions, tail planes, tail fin} then things would have taken a rather serious turn. Amongst other things, that all hatches are secure is what a pilot would check on his/her pre-flight walk around check. Of course, the maintenance crew who may have forgotten are equally responsible. Unless there is the unusual situation that all the securing points on both the cowlings failed simultaneously - seems most unlikely.

[Gansan]

the engine would not have been manufactured by Boeing.
It was probably improper maintenance by the airline company.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If that set of flaps {left and right} had damaged a flying surface {flaps, aerilons, tail planes, tail fin} then things would have taken a rather serious turn.

Agree. Also surprised that the pilot chose to activate reverse thrust knowing the state of the cowling.

[SR-71]

Originally Posted by Gansan

the engine would not have been manufactured by Boeing.
It was probably improper maintenance by the airline company.

I don't think the engines ship with the cowling. Its my understanding that the engine nacelles are built as part of the airframe which the air frame manufacturer and its subsidiaries / contractors are responsible for. It's too early to say who is responsible for this incident - the manufacturer who unfortunately cannot be ruled out at this point given their recent debacle(s) with quality control or the operator for shoddy maintenance.